Most people now argue that what is the point of getting to space, there is nothing to really do up there. Damn, in a way they are entirely right yet i believe there is a bigger picture.

go GCT.

What is the point? Difficult question to answer.

The moon, Titan, rains hydrocarbons. There is enough hydrocarbons on Titan to last Earth's current consumption 50 million years. Imagine paying a penny a gallon for your gas? The rest is left to the readers' imagination.

Surely there is a more advanced theory, yet more practical feasble method of accesing space to utilise it as a resource. I was talking to my friends the other day (who dont really follow space exploration) and i asked their opions on the topic, they agreed that a better method of accesing space in needed, wasting billions on rockets is just not feasible for humanity as a whole. As far as i know is uses a concept ( i think it is newtons second law) every action has an opposite and equal reaction that was developed over 300 years ago .

Space elevators are looking like they might be a realistic and economical replacement for rockets as far as leaving Earth goes. They're the best hope we have for converting electricity directly to propulsion, which makes them cheaper and safer than rockets and they're scaleable.

Essence of a question.
Where I can address, for reception of the help.
I have opened system in which weight am not size of a constant.
In domestic conditions jump weight of a sistem makes about 60 %.
Wrote according to forms on your pages in the research centres. But has not received any answer.

As far as I remember there is a NIAC-study about a particular kind of "Antigravitation"-prpulsion - but that "Antigravitation" is quite another phenomenon than what has been discussed in this thread up to now. The study is about how to use the causes behind a finding that looks as if far away in space antigravitational forces are working.

In all honesty if GCT technologies can pull off their gravity control, Dudes, i must say, THEY WOULD OWN...

however..

firstly i think they should not boast about UFOS( and the likes of philidaelphia experiments.) until they can get like a small (as in not expensive) prototype flying (or manipulaing gravity or whatever), or anything flying using their technology. If they could get just a small prototype flying ( or anything) and they took it to the local press or even DISCOVERY CHANNEL ,i am almost postive they would recieve millions in funding especially if they took their theorys to america, im sure america would love to get its hands on this kind of technology and stay ahead of the pack....

secondly once they got publicity and people generally know that this technology is starting to exhist (like the lifter underground), then perhaps they could ask for corporate sponsership from like a major electricity corporation or sumthing. If this doesnt work go , in my opinion, they should think laterally and go to their local TV station or whatever and do a reality TV series on the future of flight ,where i few teams compete to make the first gravity manipulator or something. Lateral thinking like this is in my opinion, is the way to go to get anywhere in life. (they would also be getting public publicity at the same time ).

Anyways good luck to them and i hope someone from their business reads this, my hopes are with you guys, something, like this technology is needed to revolutionize mankind fast, we need to open up a gate to the stars before we exterminate ourselves, to give humanity a new 'ocean' to explore - a new realm to conquer.

If you ever get round to it please could GCT publish their findings, i would love to dedicate my life to understanding and mapping out a revolutionary new technology.

all the best GCT

eXcaliberZ

In the market all that matters is physical demonstration. I'm new to this forum but if you guys work on projects together, or if you just throw ideas around, I offer my mind to be added to the no doubt powerful collective.

_________________The greatest stumbling block to technological advancement is the need to be right. Knowledge can only come to one who knows that they don't know.

There are quite a few problems with these anti gravity devices. The first is that know one ever produces a working prototype. Even the ones that work (ie published) produce such a small effect that its hard to be clear its not some systematic error. furthermore there are superconducting generators (both type I & II) both experimental and is services that in theroy (if the theroy is correct) would produce very large AG forces. Finally we are unclear on the theroy of type II superconductors. Its probably some type of BCS like effect due to isotope dependence but the debate continues.

Another problem I have is comments like "the scientific literature is just wrong". This never works. In fact if you really want to meet some crazy scientist with true crack pot ideas, you should start looking at a university. My astrophysics lecturer thinks the standard model is bunk, and he finds quarks particularly offensive. Sometimes he gets very very angry and runs around the physics department tearing down anything that has the word quark in it. He has come up with a mathematically equivalent theroy that does not "need" quarks (note that without *new* and distinct predictions its not a new theroy, just a manipulation of the math) and gives that talk at every conference he goes too. Ironically he does like GR and has produced some good work on it (discovering planets with Micro lensing). But we all know a few ace's have got lost from the pack. Academia tolerates these people and there theories in general, as long as you can do science...more or less.

It ignores the fact that the current models works really really really well. For example QED is accurate to at least 15 decimal places from current experiments and QCD seems to work as well as we can test it. GR works in every case it has been applied too except perhaps the voyager effect. SR is probably the most throughly tested theroy out there. You can't just dismiss everything as bunk without also showing that the new model works in *ALL* the cases the old model has been experimentally shown to work.

If you have a good "paper" with though math that can be investigated-Good. If the theroy makes new testable predictions good. If the model reduces in other cases to what we currently know. Great. I will be the first to say its real science etc. (I'm aware of a few such ideas....But a generally "unfinished"). But don't do the "all academia is wrong! But we got it right." I know that academia can have fads and hold on to dogma, but its not that bad and makes you look like a crackpot or worse, a conspiracy theorist.

Because of an article under www.wissenschaft.de this morning I have become aware that there is another aspect regarding antigravity.

The article concerns Dark Energy as something acting against gravity. The article is about Cosmology in principle but seems to fit into this topic to some degree.

It is reporting that a theory has been found that consistently with other theories predicts a particle of Dark Energy. The particle is formed by eight fields each of which are represented by massive particles. These fields/particles really can create the Dark-Energy-particle which is by 38 orders of magnitude lighter than an electron. The concpet of the theory is analogous to at least one of the theories predicting Neutrinos - and Neutrinos really exist.

If I understand correct that Dark-Energy-particle would act like or similar to any anti-gravity - simply because of the enrgy.

Negative energy/dark energy *might* produce "anti gravity" is the sense that it repels normal matter or produces a funny space-time curvature. Note that no laws of physics would be broken. So you still need reaction mass since momentum is conserved. You don't get propellentless propulsion. Also energy dose not become free either. You can't manipulate gravity any better than with normal mass.

In fact its just like electrostatics were like charges repel. Also the field is conservative, which means that the potential energy is only a function of position, not how it got there....

Long story short, anti gravity that is used for magic propulsion is *not* the same anti gravity that physics talks about.

Under www.welt.de there is an article today reporting that physicists have found something like a reverse Casimir-effect making nano-objects float or levitate. But this wouldn't work regarding heavier objects according to the article.

Again I don't say that this would be antigravity or a cahnce of propellantless propulsion - I only mention it because it might prove to be interesting. The article says that it might reduce friction in the case of micro- and nano-machines and make them work smoother or easier.

Perhaps it might be of meaning if micro- and naomachines are applied in space, as components of space vehicles and rockets or the like.

Prof Leonhardt leads one of four teams - three of them in Britain - to have put forward a theory in a peer-reviewed journal to achieve invisibility by making light waves flow around an object - just as a river flows undisturbed around a smooth rock.

Anyhow - one of the best physics theories I've ever seen is by Dr. Harold Aspden. He has made predictions decades ago which have been proven true even somewhat recently. His website is ENORMOUS and will take you weeks - literally - to read. He has alot to say about electromagnetism and gravity.